![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 374 to 398 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 19, 2013, at 9:52:46
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on December 18, 2013, at 23:16:48
> > The statement in #5 puts down Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and all other organized religion that does not have its agenda centered in Christ. This you agree on with me.
>
> It's possible that some people could feel put down, yes.
>
> > I am asking for you to post a repudiation in the thread where the statement appears so that:
> > A. Readers know that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community
> > B. And that the statement puts down those of other faiths.
> > I think that you could do this and include your rephrase that you think would annul the fact that the original statement puts down those of other faiths. Then readers could post criticisms of your rephrase there as to if they think that your rephrase does not annul the fact that the original statement puts down those of other faiths. I do not think that you need my permission to agree with your rephrase
>
> True, I don't, but I like it when we can agree on something.
>
> > If you are going to delay this and leave the statement to stand until I agree with your rephrase, then to protect innocent members here from any backlash to them because you will not apply the rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths, then I am asking for you to post the following. Here is what I would like for you to post in that thread where #5 appears, something like:
> > [...Readers please note that the statement in #5 puts down those of other faiths that do not have their agenda centered in Christ. I am allowing it to stand but that does not mean that other members endorse me doing that and I take full responsibility for leaving the statement to stand as could be seen by a subset of readers as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive. And to those readers that feel insulted that I am allowing your faith to be put down, I am not concerned about how you feel, for my concern is what will be good for this community as a whole.
>
> I think it's already understood that I'm allowing it to stand and taking responsibility for my actions and that others may not agree with them. I'm concerned both about people feeling insulted and about what's good for this community as a whole.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You wrote,[...It's possible that some people could feel put down, yes...it's already understood that I am allowing it to stand...]
Now the statement puts down Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and all other organized religion that does not have its agenda centered in Christ, and I would think that members of those faiths could feel insulted by that you are allowing the statement to stand.
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
True or False
A. My terms of service, Lou, is that posters are not to post what could put down those of other faiths, but I really, all the time, meant that faiths such as Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and all other faiths that do not have their agenda centered in Christ, could have their faith put down here.
B. My TOS, Lou, states not to post what could put down those of other faiths, and I am changing that now to allow Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and all other faiths that do not have their agenda centered in Christ to be put down here.
C. My TOS, Lou, is to not allow what could put down those of other faiths. Since anti-Semitic statements are those that you want purged, since I am allowing the insult to Judaism, Islam and Hinduism and the others that do not have their agenda centered in Christ to stand as that they could be seen by a subset of readers as to be in the worst organized religion by the nature of what the statement could purport that you want me to post that it is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and puts down those faiths that do not have their agenda centered in Christ, then I am also going to allow statements that put down Jews to be exempt from my rule to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths so that anti-Semitic statements will be allowed to stand.
Fill in the blank.
D. Since I do what in my thinking will be good for this community as a whole, Lou, it is good for this community for me to allow the statement in question to stand because, ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Lou PIlder
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 19, 2013, at 23:41:12
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-phozder » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 19, 2013, at 9:52:46
> Now the statement puts down Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and all other organized religion that does not have its agenda centered in Christ, and I would think that members of those faiths could feel insulted by that you are allowing the statement to stand.
It's possible that some of them would. That's why I proposed:
> > The above could be read as saying an agenda not centered in Christ is a bad reason for an organized religion. It would've been more civil to say:
> >
> > > > top 10 worst reasons for organized religion:
> > > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
> >
> > Follow-ups regarding this should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. Thanks.That's not acceptable to you? I don't think they'd feel insulted by that.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 20, 2013, at 5:15:20
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on December 19, 2013, at 23:41:12
> > Now the statement puts down Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and all other organized religion that does not have its agenda centered in Christ, and I would think that members of those faiths could feel insulted by that you are allowing the statement to stand.
>
> It's possible that some of them would. That's why I proposed:
>
> > > The above could be read as saying an agenda not centered in Christ is a bad reason for an organized religion. It would've been more civil to say:
> > >
> > > > > top 10 worst reasons for organized religion:
> > > > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
> > >
> > > Follow-ups regarding this should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. Thanks.
>
> That's not acceptable to you? I don't think they'd feel insulted by that.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
The overriding concern of mine here is that the statement in question is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and it is not in accordance with your rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths.
Now if you put in the thread where the statement appears that:
[...the above could be saying an agenda not centered in Christ is a bad reason for an organized religion...],
Then that indicates that there is something that is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community, and obviously puts down those of other faiths that have their agenda not centered in Christ.
So that would satisfy the mission of the community for support and education because your statement there could show that the original statement is not supportive. For if it was, it would stand without comment from you.
The aspect of your rephrase could be understood differently by people with different depths of knowledge concerning comparative religions.
But be it as it may be, I would like for you to post the statement there to show that the statement by the poster is not what this forum condones and your statement would also show that you are repudiating any libel toward religions that do not have their agenda centered in Christ as being a bad reason as the original statement in question could promote.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 20, 2013, at 18:32:54
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-repulibl » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 20, 2013, at 5:15:20
> > > Now the statement puts down Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and all other organized religion that does not have its agenda centered in Christ, and I would think that members of those faiths could feel insulted by that you are allowing the statement to stand.
> >
> > It's possible that some of them would. That's why I proposed:
> >
> > > > The above could be read as saying an agenda not centered in Christ is a bad reason for an organized religion. It would've been more civil to say:
> > > >
> > > > > > top 10 worst reasons for organized religion:
> > > > > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
> > > >
> > > > Follow-ups regarding this should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. Thanks.
> >
> > That's not acceptable to you? I don't think they'd feel insulted by that.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> The overriding concern of mine here is that the statement in question is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and it is not in accordance with your rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths.
> Now if you put in the thread where the statement appears that:
> [...the above could be saying an agenda not centered in Christ is a bad reason for an organized religion...],
> Then that indicates that there is something that is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community, and obviously puts down those of other faiths that have their agenda not centered in Christ.
> So that would satisfy the mission of the community for support and education because your statement there could show that the original statement is not supportive. For if it was, it would stand without comment from you.
> The aspect of your rephrase could be understood differently by people with different depths of knowledge concerning comparative religions.
> But be it as it may be, I would like for you to post the statement there to show that the statement by the poster is not what this forum condones and your statement would also show that you are repudiating any libel toward religions that do not have their agenda centered in Christ as being a bad reason as the original statement in question could promote.
> Lou Pilder
>Mr. Hsiung,
We can now continue to another post. In this post, Judaism is put down. Let us look at one part of the poster's message to the community here and wherever else it goes to.
[..Lou's burden of saving souls may be a treacherous form of slavery-a burden seemingly imposed by God himself...].
The statements puts down Jews as a subset of readers could think that the statement is portraying Jews as an inferior group as that the God that the Jews give service and worship to imposes a form of treachery to the worshipers as that the Jews are in slavery because they give service and worship to God. The statement by the poster is false and could induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings against Jews and decrease the respect , regard and confidence in which I am held as a Jew and other Jews also.
I am asking that you post in that thread that the statement in not in accordance with your rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths, and it is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. The statement could induce bullying toward Jewish children by readers that think that the statement is supportive and will be good for the community as a whole because without sanction, a subset of readers could think that you are validating what the statement could purport. And worse, there could have been up to 6 deputies that have IMHO a responsibility to carry out your policies or resign. And even worse, failure to address the libel toward the Jews could IMHO contribute to a Jewish child committing suicide as feeling put down when they read it that there is ongoing research to show how allowing statements that a subset of readers could see as putting down Jews in this manner could be an insult to Jews and lead Jews to feel insulted and cause depression.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20101117/msgs/971092.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 22, 2013, at 23:58:12
In reply to Lou'sreply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-lyblguz, posted by Lou Pilder on December 20, 2013, at 18:32:54
> > But be it as it may be, I would like for you to post the statement there to show that the statement by the poster is not what this forum condones and your statement would also show that you are repudiating any libel toward religions that do not have their agenda centered in Christ as being a bad reason as the original statement in question could promote.
OK, it's nice when we can agree on something.
> We can now continue to another post.> > Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery - a burden seemingly imposed by God himself
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20101117/msgs/971092.html
> The statements puts down Jews as a subset of readers could think that the statement is portraying Jews as an inferior group as that the God that the Jews give service and worship to imposes a form of treachery to the worshipers as that the Jews are in slavery because they give service and worship to God. The statement by the poster is false and could induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings against Jews and decrease the respect , regard and confidence in which I am held as a Jew and other Jews also.
Wait, what you heard him saying was Judaism might be a form of slavery?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2013, at 10:08:16
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on December 22, 2013, at 23:58:12
> > > But be it as it may be, I would like for you to post the statement there to show that the statement by the poster is not what this forum condones and your statement would also show that you are repudiating any libel toward religions that do not have their agenda centered in Christ as being a bad reason as the original statement in question could promote.
>
> OK, it's nice when we can agree on something.
>
> > We can now continue to another post.
>
> > > Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery - a burden seemingly imposed by God himself
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20101117/msgs/971092.html
>
> > The statements puts down Jews as a subset of readers could think that the statement is portraying Jews as an inferior group as that the God that the Jews give service and worship to imposes a form of treachery to the worshipers as that the Jews are in slavery because they give service and worship to God. The statement by the poster is false and could induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings against Jews and decrease the respect , regard and confidence in which I am held as a Jew and other Jews also.
>
> Wait, what you heard him saying was Judaism might be a form of slavery?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...what you heard him saying is that Judaism might be a form of slavery?...]
It is much more than that. For what can be seen is plainly visible. Let us look at the whole statement:
[...I used the phrase to imply that Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery-a burden seemingly imposed by God Himself...]. The poster was commenting on why he posted a subject line that read:
[...who brought you out of the land of Egypt...].
Then there is the poster's phrase, {...a treacherous form of slavery imposed by God Himself...}.
What can be seen is the libel to Jews by the word {treacherous}. The word means {a betrayal} or {deception}. What can be thought by a subset of Jewish readers in particular but not limited to, is that the God that the Jews give service and worship to, that were delivered out of slavery in Egypt, is a God that can't be trusted, for what the poster wrote could mean that the God in question imposed a form of slavery upon those that He delivered from slavery which was an act of deception to enslave them. This is a false statement here by the poster and could lead a subset of readers to feel put down and could include non-Jews as well. We Jews trust the God that we give service and worship to and He has not betrayed us.
The questions that I use here in these posts that a subset of readers could see you as validating the libel toward the Jews by the fact that the anti-Semitic statements remain unsanctioned, are:
A. Can the statement bring out hatred of the Jews or me as a Jew in a subset of reader's minds?
B. Can it be humiliating to Jews that read the statement in question?
C. Can the statement be seen, since it is unsanctioned, that you and up to six deputies are validating the libel toward the Jews?
D. Is the statement a part of a deliberate, hostile, behavior to falsely discredit Jews and put down Jews and me as a Jew here and humiliate me, by you and your deputies?
E. Are there posts by you and/or your deputies and any members that are in concert with you that a subset of readers could consider to be soliciting others to turn against me?
F. Could the anti-Semitic statements that put down/accuse Jews, that could be seen by a subset of readers as an extreme form of psychological abuse, cause depression and increased suicidal ideation is a subset of Jewish children that read here?
Those are some of the criteria that I use to bring these to our discussion. And as long as the statements remain without sanction, a subset of readers could think that you are validating the libel toward the Jews contained in the statements. That could foster and encourage others to write the same against the Jews, and me as Jew, for you say that you do what will be good for this community as a whole and that readers are to try to trust you and that one match could start a forest fire. IMHO, a subset of readers could think that if there is a statement that puts down Jews , and you will not post a repudiation to it, them they could think that it is supportive to post what could put down Jews.
I am asking for you to accept the opportunity that you have now to post in the thread where the statement in question appears, that it is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and that it is not in accordance with your policy to not post what could put down those of other faiths.
Lou PIlder
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 24, 2013, at 2:23:26
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-trchrusgd » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 23, 2013, at 10:08:16
> > > Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery - a burden seemingly imposed by God himself
> What can be thought by a subset of Jewish readers ... is that ... the God in question imposed a form of slavery upon those that He delivered from slavery which was an act of deception to enslave them.
I think I see what you mean, but:
1. the subject of the sentence is "Lou's burden"
2. he says "may be", not "is", and "seemingly"Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 24, 2013, at 21:18:48
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on December 24, 2013, at 2:23:26
> > > > Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery - a burden seemingly imposed by God himself
>
> > What can be thought by a subset of Jewish readers ... is that ... the God in question imposed a form of slavery upon those that He delivered from slavery which was an act of deception to enslave them.
>
> I think I see what you mean, but:
>
> 1. the subject of the sentence is "Lou's burden"
> 2. he says "may be", not "is", and "seemingly"
>
> Bob
Mr. Hsiung,
Here is the statement in question:
[..I used the phrase to imply that Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery-a burden seemingly imposed by God himself...].
There are two parts in question.
A. Lou's burden (which is saving souls)
B. Imposed by God himself
The statement in "A" is false. I do not and I am not, under any burden because I give service and worship to the God that delivered the Israelites from slavery out of Egypt. The fact that the author uses the term, {may} does not annul the fact that the author wrote that I have a burden because I am a Jew, or that Jews could have a burden placed upon them by a deceptive, treacherous, god that uses betrayal. This could be a false statement to all Jews, for the statement in toto is about Jews, for the author writes that it is {apparent}(that is what seemingly means), and it also could mean as far as one can see) that the God in question has imposed by deception and betrayal the "burden" upon those that He had delivered from slavery out from Egypt, and I guess their offspring, since the author writes that I am included in any "burden". This could lead a subset of readers, such as Jewish children in depression that come here via a search, to feel put down when they read it and go further into depression and commit suicide.
The overriding issue to me here is that a Jewish child that reads the statement could think that the statement insults the God that the Jews give service and worship to by writing that it is apparent {seemingly} that this God used deceit and betrayal to place a burden on Jews which could lead to feeling that they have a bad God and feel put down. And if by seeing what can be seen in the post, the child could think that you by allowing the statement, that you are validating what is written that they feel put down when they read such as being a Jew.
This may be to you a hypothetical situation that is unlikely, but there are recent cases like this that are under research as to the effects of statements like the one in question being allowed to be fostered by a psychiatrist as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole. But I know what causes depression and suicide and the statement in question could IMHO arouse antisemitic feelings and Jewish readers could think that hostility could be induced in some that read the statement to inflict harm to Jews. This is because the statement is false and defames Jews as an inferior group, stereotyping them as having a burden placed on them by a treacherous God that has betrayed the Jews by deception, for {seemingly} means {for all intents and purposes}.
But be it as it may be, if you insist that you want the statement to stand, then you will take the responsibility for any deaths that could arise out of you allowing the statement to stand for you say that you take responsibility for what you write, and I say that by you allowing third party posts to stand, that it could be thought that you are validating what the post could purport and it is like you writing the statement yourself.
So let it be with what you want and I would like to go to the other post in question that puts down Jews in the link to John 5.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 27, 2013, at 3:11:30
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-allintenz » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 24, 2013, at 21:18:48
> > > > > Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery - a burden seemingly imposed by God himself
> >
> > > What can be thought by a subset of Jewish readers ... is that ... the God in question imposed a form of slavery upon those that He delivered from slavery which was an act of deception to enslave them.
>
> There are two parts in question.
> A. Lou's burden (which is saving souls)
> B. Imposed by God himself
> The statement in "A" is false. I do not and I am not, under any burden because I give service and worship to the God that delivered the Israelites from slavery out of Egypt. ... the author wrote that I have a burden because I am a Jew, or that Jews could have a burden placed upon them by a deceptive, treacherous, god that uses betrayal.
> a Jewish child ... could think ... that they have a bad GodOK, I think I see now. Are you saying a subset of Jewish readers could think that the poster was saying God imposed a burden upon you? If so, did you consider replying that:
a. You don't feel that giving service and worship to your God is a burden to you.
and/or
b. You don't feel that a God that imposes burdens is necessarily a bad God.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2013, at 8:53:12
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-allintenz » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on December 24, 2013, at 21:18:48
> > > > > Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery - a burden seemingly imposed by God himself
> >
> > > What can be thought by a subset of Jewish readers ... is that ... the God in question imposed a form of slavery upon those that He delivered from slavery which was an act of deception to enslave them.
> >
> > I think I see what you mean, but:
> >
> > 1. the subject of the sentence is "Lou's burden"
> > 2. he says "may be", not "is", and "seemingly"
> >
> > Bob
> Mr. Hsiung,
> Here is the statement in question:
> [..I used the phrase to imply that Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery-a burden seemingly imposed by God himself...].
> There are two parts in question.
> A. Lou's burden (which is saving souls)
> B. Imposed by God himself
> The statement in "A" is false. I do not and I am not, under any burden because I give service and worship to the God that delivered the Israelites from slavery out of Egypt. The fact that the author uses the term, {may} does not annul the fact that the author wrote that I have a burden because I am a Jew, or that Jews could have a burden placed upon them by a deceptive, treacherous, god that uses betrayal. This could be a false statement to all Jews, for the statement in toto is about Jews, for the author writes that it is {apparent}(that is what seemingly means), and it also could mean as far as one can see) that the God in question has imposed by deception and betrayal the "burden" upon those that He had delivered from slavery out from Egypt, and I guess their offspring, since the author writes that I am included in any "burden". This could lead a subset of readers, such as Jewish children in depression that come here via a search, to feel put down when they read it and go further into depression and commit suicide.
> The overriding issue to me here is that a Jewish child that reads the statement could think that the statement insults the God that the Jews give service and worship to by writing that it is apparent {seemingly} that this God used deceit and betrayal to place a burden on Jews which could lead to feeling that they have a bad God and feel put down. And if by seeing what can be seen in the post, the child could think that you by allowing the statement, that you are validating what is written that they feel put down when they read such as being a Jew.
> This may be to you a hypothetical situation that is unlikely, but there are recent cases like this that are under research as to the effects of statements like the one in question being allowed to be fostered by a psychiatrist as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole. But I know what causes depression and suicide and the statement in question could IMHO arouse antisemitic feelings and Jewish readers could think that hostility could be induced in some that read the statement to inflict harm to Jews. This is because the statement is false and defames Jews as an inferior group, stereotyping them as having a burden placed on them by a treacherous God that has betrayed the Jews by deception, for {seemingly} means {for all intents and purposes}.
> But be it as it may be, if you insist that you want the statement to stand, then you will take the responsibility for any deaths that could arise out of you allowing the statement to stand for you say that you take responsibility for what you write, and I say that by you allowing third party posts to stand, that it could be thought that you are validating what the post could purport and it is like you writing the statement yourself.
> So let it be with what you want and I would like to go to the other post in question that puts down Jews in the link to John 5.
> Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote about me asking something to the poster as to if I considered it then.
The post puts down Jews on its face, and is plainly visible so that I did not consider asking for any clarification from the poster. There is also the prohibitions from you to me that could prevent me from posting what could be confrontational. And also, the issue of posting here that one being a slave that belonged to a faith had already been determined here as not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community by you in a previous post.
Since it is plainly visible that Jews are the subject and me as a Jew, the libel that states that the God that the Jews give service and worship to is "a treacherous God", is libel per se and needs not to be clairified by asking for such to the author for that God is the same God to all Jews, not to just me as a Jew. But it is much more than that because other faiths also hold that same God as the God that they give service and worship to. So a Christian child could also see the putting down of the God that the Jews give service and worship to as putting them down also since they worship the same God and do not consider that God to be a God that betrays or deceives, which is an insult to the God in question and the people that give service and worship to that God.
The insult is plainly visible and could cause stigmatization and hatred toward not only Jews, but the others as well. The portrayal of this God as a treacherous God is (redacted by respondent) and is inconsistent with the forum's purpose and distorts the intent of the forum as being for support. By you and up to six deputies unwilling to address the post in the same manner as other posts that {put down}, a subset of readers could think that you and your deputies then are ratifying the libel and that it will be good for the community as a whole to leave it as it is so that a subset of readers could think that it is supportive. This could actively solicit others to post the same or something analogous to what puts down Jews and others as is plainly visible in the post. Then a subset of reads could think that you and your deputies are contributing to the anti-Semitism that is self-evident in the post, for it puts down Jews.
At this time I would like to modify my request to you in relation to what I want you to post in the thread where the post appears, to say something like one of the following:
[... I apologize for myself and the deputies for allowing this to stand about the Jews and if it is posted again, or anything analogous to it, by anyone, I will block them...]
Then I would like to go to the post that puts down Jews where the poster offered a link to John 5 and I listed the numbers of the verses that put down Jews.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2013, at 9:12:58
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-eevehy, posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2013, at 8:53:12
> > > > > > Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery - a burden seemingly imposed by God himself
> > >
> > > > What can be thought by a subset of Jewish readers ... is that ... the God in question imposed a form of slavery upon those that He delivered from slavery which was an act of deception to enslave them.
> > >
> > > I think I see what you mean, but:
> > >
> > > 1. the subject of the sentence is "Lou's burden"
> > > 2. he says "may be", not "is", and "seemingly"
> > >
> > > Bob
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > Here is the statement in question:
> > [..I used the phrase to imply that Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery-a burden seemingly imposed by God himself...].
> > There are two parts in question.
> > A. Lou's burden (which is saving souls)
> > B. Imposed by God himself
> > The statement in "A" is false. I do not and I am not, under any burden because I give service and worship to the God that delivered the Israelites from slavery out of Egypt. The fact that the author uses the term, {may} does not annul the fact that the author wrote that I have a burden because I am a Jew, or that Jews could have a burden placed upon them by a deceptive, treacherous, god that uses betrayal. This could be a false statement to all Jews, for the statement in toto is about Jews, for the author writes that it is {apparent}(that is what seemingly means), and it also could mean as far as one can see) that the God in question has imposed by deception and betrayal the "burden" upon those that He had delivered from slavery out from Egypt, and I guess their offspring, since the author writes that I am included in any "burden". This could lead a subset of readers, such as Jewish children in depression that come here via a search, to feel put down when they read it and go further into depression and commit suicide.
> > The overriding issue to me here is that a Jewish child that reads the statement could think that the statement insults the God that the Jews give service and worship to by writing that it is apparent {seemingly} that this God used deceit and betrayal to place a burden on Jews which could lead to feeling that they have a bad God and feel put down. And if by seeing what can be seen in the post, the child could think that you by allowing the statement, that you are validating what is written that they feel put down when they read such as being a Jew.
> > This may be to you a hypothetical situation that is unlikely, but there are recent cases like this that are under research as to the effects of statements like the one in question being allowed to be fostered by a psychiatrist as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole. But I know what causes depression and suicide and the statement in question could IMHO arouse antisemitic feelings and Jewish readers could think that hostility could be induced in some that read the statement to inflict harm to Jews. This is because the statement is false and defames Jews as an inferior group, stereotyping them as having a burden placed on them by a treacherous God that has betrayed the Jews by deception, for {seemingly} means {for all intents and purposes}.
> > But be it as it may be, if you insist that you want the statement to stand, then you will take the responsibility for any deaths that could arise out of you allowing the statement to stand for you say that you take responsibility for what you write, and I say that by you allowing third party posts to stand, that it could be thought that you are validating what the post could purport and it is like you writing the statement yourself.
> > So let it be with what you want and I would like to go to the other post in question that puts down Jews in the link to John 5.
> > Lou Pilder
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote about me asking something to the poster as to if I considered it then.
> The post puts down Jews on its face, and is plainly visible so that I did not consider asking for any clarification from the poster. There is also the prohibitions from you to me that could prevent me from posting what could be confrontational. And also, the issue of posting here that one being a slave that belonged to a faith had already been determined here as not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community by you in a previous post.
> Since it is plainly visible that Jews are the subject and me as a Jew, the libel that states that the God that the Jews give service and worship to is "a treacherous God", is libel per se and needs not to be clairified by asking for such to the author for that God is the same God to all Jews, not to just me as a Jew. But it is much more than that because other faiths also hold that same God as the God that they give service and worship to. So a Christian child could also see the putting down of the God that the Jews give service and worship to as putting them down also since they worship the same God and do not consider that God to be a God that betrays or deceives, which is an insult to the God in question and the people that give service and worship to that God.
> The insult is plainly visible and could cause stigmatization and hatred toward not only Jews, but the others as well. The portrayal of this God as a treacherous God is (redacted by respondent) and is inconsistent with the forum's purpose and distorts the intent of the forum as being for support. By you and up to six deputies unwilling to address the post in the same manner as other posts that {put down}, a subset of readers could think that you and your deputies then are ratifying the libel and that it will be good for the community as a whole to leave it as it is so that a subset of readers could think that it is supportive. This could actively solicit others to post the same or something analogous to what puts down Jews and others as is plainly visible in the post. Then a subset of reads could think that you and your deputies are contributing to the anti-Semitism that is self-evident in the post, for it puts down Jews.
> At this time I would like to modify my request to you in relation to what I want you to post in the thread where the post appears, to say something like one of the following:
> [... I apologize for myself and the deputies for allowing this to stand about the Jews and if it is posted again, or anything analogous to it, by anyone, I will block them...]
> Then I would like to go to the post that puts down Jews where the poster offered a link to John 5 and I listed the numbers of the verses that put down Jews.
> Lou Pilder
>
> The correction is that I put quotation marks around {treacherous God}. The convention of quotation marks could be used in many ways, one being an exact wording, and another to give a type of emphasis to the phrase, which is what I was intending here, for the statement is:
[...Lou's burden of 'saving souls'may be a treacherous form of slavery-a burden seemingly imposed by God himself...].
The use by me of "treacherous god" is what a subset of readers could think when they read the statement because there is an association with that God {imposed} this {treacherous form of slavery}.
I don't claim to be a "A" student concerning grammatical structure, and others could also not be "A" students also. So it is what could be seen or thought by a subset of readers when they read the post in question and I think that some could think that the god in question is being portrayed as a treacherous God because the poster states that He "imposed" the" treacherous form of slavery" to the Jews because the poster refers to the Exodus.
Lou
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 3, 2014, at 23:34:55
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-eevehy, posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2013, at 8:53:12
> You wrote about me asking something to the poster as to if I considered it then.
Not about asking the poster anything, just replying with a statement:
> > a. You don't feel that giving service and worship to your God is a burden to you.
> >
> > and/or
> >
> > b. You don't feel that a God that imposes burdens is necessarily a bad God.If you're not under any burden, then God didn't impose anything on you, and Jewish children won't think they have a bad God.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 4, 2014, at 20:40:09
In reply to correction-Lous reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2013, at 9:12:58
> > > > > > > Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery - a burden seemingly imposed by God himself
> > > >
> > > > > What can be thought by a subset of Jewish readers ... is that ... the God in question imposed a form of slavery upon those that He delivered from slavery which was an act of deception to enslave them.
> > > >
> > > > I think I see what you mean, but:
> > > >
> > > > 1. the subject of the sentence is "Lou's burden"
> > > > 2. he says "may be", not "is", and "seemingly"
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > Here is the statement in question:
> > > [..I used the phrase to imply that Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery-a burden seemingly imposed by God himself...].
> > > There are two parts in question.
> > > A. Lou's burden (which is saving souls)
> > > B. Imposed by God himself
> > > The statement in "A" is false. I do not and I am not, under any burden because I give service and worship to the God that delivered the Israelites from slavery out of Egypt. The fact that the author uses the term, {may} does not annul the fact that the author wrote that I have a burden because I am a Jew, or that Jews could have a burden placed upon them by a deceptive, treacherous, god that uses betrayal. This could be a false statement to all Jews, for the statement in toto is about Jews, for the author writes that it is {apparent}(that is what seemingly means), and it also could mean as far as one can see) that the God in question has imposed by deception and betrayal the "burden" upon those that He had delivered from slavery out from Egypt, and I guess their offspring, since the author writes that I am included in any "burden". This could lead a subset of readers, such as Jewish children in depression that come here via a search, to feel put down when they read it and go further into depression and commit suicide.
> > > The overriding issue to me here is that a Jewish child that reads the statement could think that the statement insults the God that the Jews give service and worship to by writing that it is apparent {seemingly} that this God used deceit and betrayal to place a burden on Jews which could lead to feeling that they have a bad God and feel put down. And if by seeing what can be seen in the post, the child could think that you by allowing the statement, that you are validating what is written that they feel put down when they read such as being a Jew.
> > > This may be to you a hypothetical situation that is unlikely, but there are recent cases like this that are under research as to the effects of statements like the one in question being allowed to be fostered by a psychiatrist as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole. But I know what causes depression and suicide and the statement in question could IMHO arouse antisemitic feelings and Jewish readers could think that hostility could be induced in some that read the statement to inflict harm to Jews. This is because the statement is false and defames Jews as an inferior group, stereotyping them as having a burden placed on them by a treacherous God that has betrayed the Jews by deception, for {seemingly} means {for all intents and purposes}.
> > > But be it as it may be, if you insist that you want the statement to stand, then you will take the responsibility for any deaths that could arise out of you allowing the statement to stand for you say that you take responsibility for what you write, and I say that by you allowing third party posts to stand, that it could be thought that you are validating what the post could purport and it is like you writing the statement yourself.
> > > So let it be with what you want and I would like to go to the other post in question that puts down Jews in the link to John 5.
> > > Lou Pilder
> > >
> > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > You wrote about me asking something to the poster as to if I considered it then.
> > The post puts down Jews on its face, and is plainly visible so that I did not consider asking for any clarification from the poster. There is also the prohibitions from you to me that could prevent me from posting what could be confrontational. And also, the issue of posting here that one being a slave that belonged to a faith had already been determined here as not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community by you in a previous post.
> > Since it is plainly visible that Jews are the subject and me as a Jew, the libel that states that the God that the Jews give service and worship to is "a treacherous God", is libel per se and needs not to be clairified by asking for such to the author for that God is the same God to all Jews, not to just me as a Jew. But it is much more than that because other faiths also hold that same God as the God that they give service and worship to. So a Christian child could also see the putting down of the God that the Jews give service and worship to as putting them down also since they worship the same God and do not consider that God to be a God that betrays or deceives, which is an insult to the God in question and the people that give service and worship to that God.
> > The insult is plainly visible and could cause stigmatization and hatred toward not only Jews, but the others as well. The portrayal of this God as a treacherous God is (redacted by respondent) and is inconsistent with the forum's purpose and distorts the intent of the forum as being for support. By you and up to six deputies unwilling to address the post in the same manner as other posts that {put down}, a subset of readers could think that you and your deputies then are ratifying the libel and that it will be good for the community as a whole to leave it as it is so that a subset of readers could think that it is supportive. This could actively solicit others to post the same or something analogous to what puts down Jews and others as is plainly visible in the post. Then a subset of reads could think that you and your deputies are contributing to the anti-Semitism that is self-evident in the post, for it puts down Jews.
> > At this time I would like to modify my request to you in relation to what I want you to post in the thread where the post appears, to say something like one of the following:
> > [... I apologize for myself and the deputies for allowing this to stand about the Jews and if it is posted again, or anything analogous to it, by anyone, I will block them...]
> > Then I would like to go to the post that puts down Jews where the poster offered a link to John 5 and I listed the numbers of the verses that put down Jews.
> > Lou Pilder
> >
> > The correction is that I put quotation marks around {treacherous God}. The convention of quotation marks could be used in many ways, one being an exact wording, and another to give a type of emphasis to the phrase, which is what I was intending here, for the statement is:
> [...Lou's burden of 'saving souls'may be a treacherous form of slavery-a burden seemingly imposed by God himself...].
> The use by me of "treacherous god" is what a subset of readers could think when they read the statement because there is an association with that God {imposed} this {treacherous form of slavery}.
> I don't claim to be a "A" student concerning grammatical structure, and others could also not be "A" students also. So it is what could be seen or thought by a subset of readers when they read the post in question and I think that some could think that the god in question is being portrayed as a treacherous God because the poster states that He "imposed" the" treacherous form of slavery" to the Jews because the poster refers to the Exodus.
> Lou
> >
> Mr Hsiung,
The readers are led to believe what can be seen by what you have posted here. What readers can be led to believe is that what is posted, and not sanctioned, is considered by you to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community, and supportive, and will be good for this community as a whole as stated in your TOS here.
The anti-Semitic statements that I am asking for you to post a repudiation to, could reverse the thinking of a subset of people that could think that by the statements standing, that those anti-Semitic statements are supportive and will be good for this community as a whole.
In the post in discussion now, Jewish readers and Christian readers and Islamic readers and all other readers that have their faith's foundation going back to Abraham, could feel insulted not only by what the post could purport about those people that give service and worship to that God that brought the Israelites out of bondage from Egypt, but also about what the post purports about the God that the poster Libels with the false statement that that God used deceit and caused a treacherous form of slavery apparently {imposed} by that God Himself.
What matters to me is that Jewish children, Islamic children and Christian children that read this could feel humiliated when they read the post and if they are in depression, they could go deeper into depression and kill themselves. This is because they could think that you are validating the libel against their God by that it is standing , so they could think that you are saying that the libel is supportive and will be good for this community as a whole to allow it to stand. And worse, if they read this discussion between us, they could see that the fire of hate is still burning.
Here is a post that readers could have read before they read the post in question here. I can not change what one could think if I posted that what the poster wrote was false, for it goes without saying that Jews and Islamic people and Christians could think that the statement insults their god and them as those that give service and worship to that God.
now if you have reached the point that you are going to allow the statement to stand, and not post a repudiation to the libel and insult to the God of the Abrahamic faiths, then you say that you will take the responsibility for whatever arises out of the fact that the statement is standing after my requests to post a repudiation to it.
So let us go to the next post where I have asked you to post a repudiation to the anti-Semitic statements in the link offered by the poster to John 5 with the following modification. I am changing my request to that you post that the anti-Semitic statements are not in accordance with your rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths, to include also that the anti-Semitic statements will not be good for this community as a whole.
Lou Pilder
Here are some links to what readers could think from what can be seen that you think.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/307041.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/973909.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 4, 2014, at 20:54:53
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-pstlbrng, posted by Lou Pilder on January 4, 2014, at 20:40:09
> > > > > > > > Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery - a burden seemingly imposed by God himself
> > > > >
> > > > > > What can be thought by a subset of Jewish readers ... is that ... the God in question imposed a form of slavery upon those that He delivered from slavery which was an act of deception to enslave them.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think I see what you mean, but:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. the subject of the sentence is "Lou's burden"
> > > > > 2. he says "may be", not "is", and "seemingly"
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob
> > > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > > Here is the statement in question:
> > > > [..I used the phrase to imply that Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery-a burden seemingly imposed by God himself...].
> > > > There are two parts in question.
> > > > A. Lou's burden (which is saving souls)
> > > > B. Imposed by God himself
> > > > The statement in "A" is false. I do not and I am not, under any burden because I give service and worship to the God that delivered the Israelites from slavery out of Egypt. The fact that the author uses the term, {may} does not annul the fact that the author wrote that I have a burden because I am a Jew, or that Jews could have a burden placed upon them by a deceptive, treacherous, god that uses betrayal. This could be a false statement to all Jews, for the statement in toto is about Jews, for the author writes that it is {apparent}(that is what seemingly means), and it also could mean as far as one can see) that the God in question has imposed by deception and betrayal the "burden" upon those that He had delivered from slavery out from Egypt, and I guess their offspring, since the author writes that I am included in any "burden". This could lead a subset of readers, such as Jewish children in depression that come here via a search, to feel put down when they read it and go further into depression and commit suicide.
> > > > The overriding issue to me here is that a Jewish child that reads the statement could think that the statement insults the God that the Jews give service and worship to by writing that it is apparent {seemingly} that this God used deceit and betrayal to place a burden on Jews which could lead to feeling that they have a bad God and feel put down. And if by seeing what can be seen in the post, the child could think that you by allowing the statement, that you are validating what is written that they feel put down when they read such as being a Jew.
> > > > This may be to you a hypothetical situation that is unlikely, but there are recent cases like this that are under research as to the effects of statements like the one in question being allowed to be fostered by a psychiatrist as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole. But I know what causes depression and suicide and the statement in question could IMHO arouse antisemitic feelings and Jewish readers could think that hostility could be induced in some that read the statement to inflict harm to Jews. This is because the statement is false and defames Jews as an inferior group, stereotyping them as having a burden placed on them by a treacherous God that has betrayed the Jews by deception, for {seemingly} means {for all intents and purposes}.
> > > > But be it as it may be, if you insist that you want the statement to stand, then you will take the responsibility for any deaths that could arise out of you allowing the statement to stand for you say that you take responsibility for what you write, and I say that by you allowing third party posts to stand, that it could be thought that you are validating what the post could purport and it is like you writing the statement yourself.
> > > > So let it be with what you want and I would like to go to the other post in question that puts down Jews in the link to John 5.
> > > > Lou Pilder
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > You wrote about me asking something to the poster as to if I considered it then.
> > > The post puts down Jews on its face, and is plainly visible so that I did not consider asking for any clarification from the poster. There is also the prohibitions from you to me that could prevent me from posting what could be confrontational. And also, the issue of posting here that one being a slave that belonged to a faith had already been determined here as not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community by you in a previous post.
> > > Since it is plainly visible that Jews are the subject and me as a Jew, the libel that states that the God that the Jews give service and worship to is "a treacherous God", is libel per se and needs not to be clairified by asking for such to the author for that God is the same God to all Jews, not to just me as a Jew. But it is much more than that because other faiths also hold that same God as the God that they give service and worship to. So a Christian child could also see the putting down of the God that the Jews give service and worship to as putting them down also since they worship the same God and do not consider that God to be a God that betrays or deceives, which is an insult to the God in question and the people that give service and worship to that God.
> > > The insult is plainly visible and could cause stigmatization and hatred toward not only Jews, but the others as well. The portrayal of this God as a treacherous God is (redacted by respondent) and is inconsistent with the forum's purpose and distorts the intent of the forum as being for support. By you and up to six deputies unwilling to address the post in the same manner as other posts that {put down}, a subset of readers could think that you and your deputies then are ratifying the libel and that it will be good for the community as a whole to leave it as it is so that a subset of readers could think that it is supportive. This could actively solicit others to post the same or something analogous to what puts down Jews and others as is plainly visible in the post. Then a subset of reads could think that you and your deputies are contributing to the anti-Semitism that is self-evident in the post, for it puts down Jews.
> > > At this time I would like to modify my request to you in relation to what I want you to post in the thread where the post appears, to say something like one of the following:
> > > [... I apologize for myself and the deputies for allowing this to stand about the Jews and if it is posted again, or anything analogous to it, by anyone, I will block them...]
> > > Then I would like to go to the post that puts down Jews where the poster offered a link to John 5 and I listed the numbers of the verses that put down Jews.
> > > Lou Pilder
> > >
> > > The correction is that I put quotation marks around {treacherous God}. The convention of quotation marks could be used in many ways, one being an exact wording, and another to give a type of emphasis to the phrase, which is what I was intending here, for the statement is:
> > [...Lou's burden of 'saving souls'may be a treacherous form of slavery-a burden seemingly imposed by God himself...].
> > The use by me of "treacherous god" is what a subset of readers could think when they read the statement because there is an association with that God {imposed} this {treacherous form of slavery}.
> > I don't claim to be a "A" student concerning grammatical structure, and others could also not be "A" students also. So it is what could be seen or thought by a subset of readers when they read the post in question and I think that some could think that the god in question is being portrayed as a treacherous God because the poster states that He "imposed" the" treacherous form of slavery" to the Jews because the poster refers to the Exodus.
> > Lou
> > >
> > Mr Hsiung,
> The readers are led to believe what can be seen by what you have posted here. What readers can be led to believe is that what is posted, and not sanctioned, is considered by you to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community, and supportive, and will be good for this community as a whole as stated in your TOS here.
> The anti-Semitic statements that I am asking for you to post a repudiation to, could reverse the thinking of a subset of people that could think that by the statements standing, that those anti-Semitic statements are supportive and will be good for this community as a whole.
> In the post in discussion now, Jewish readers and Christian readers and Islamic readers and all other readers that have their faith's foundation going back to Abraham, could feel insulted not only by what the post could purport about those people that give service and worship to that God that brought the Israelites out of bondage from Egypt, but also about what the post purports about the God that the poster Libels with the false statement that that God used deceit and caused a treacherous form of slavery apparently {imposed} by that God Himself.
> What matters to me is that Jewish children, Islamic children and Christian children that read this could feel humiliated when they read the post and if they are in depression, they could go deeper into depression and kill themselves. This is because they could think that you are validating the libel against their God by that it is standing , so they could think that you are saying that the libel is supportive and will be good for this community as a whole to allow it to stand. And worse, if they read this discussion between us, they could see that the fire of hate is still burning.
> Here is a post that readers could have read before they read the post in question here. I can not change what one could think if I posted that what the poster wrote was false, for it goes without saying that Jews and Islamic people and Christians could think that the statement insults their god and them as those that give service and worship to that God.
> now if you have reached the point that you are going to allow the statement to stand, and not post a repudiation to the libel and insult to the God of the Abrahamic faiths, then you say that you will take the responsibility for whatever arises out of the fact that the statement is standing after my requests to post a repudiation to it.
> So let us go to the next post where I have asked you to post a repudiation to the anti-Semitic statements in the link offered by the poster to John 5 with the following modification. I am changing my request to that you post that the anti-Semitic statements are not in accordance with your rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths, to include also that the anti-Semitic statements will not be good for this community as a whole.
> Lou Pilder
> Here are some links to what readers could think from what can be seen that you think.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/307041.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/973909.html
>
> correction,
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/307041.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 5, 2014, at 2:25:20
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-pstlbrng, posted by Lou Pilder on January 4, 2014, at 20:40:09
> The readers are led to believe what can be seen by what you have posted here. What readers can be led to believe is that what is posted, and not sanctioned, is considered by you to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community, and supportive, and will be good for this community as a whole as stated in your TOS here.
> The anti-Semitic statements that I am asking for you to post a repudiation to, could reverse the thinking of a subset of people that could think that by the statements standing, that those anti-Semitic statements are supportive and will be good for this community as a whole.Another way to look at this is:
Readers could believe that what was posted about you and not repudiated by you was considered by you to be accurate. The statements I'm asking you to post could reverse that thinking.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 5, 2014, at 20:46:19
In reply to Lou's replyThe Hsiung-Pilder discussion-correction, posted by Lou Pilder on January 4, 2014, at 20:54:53
> > > > > > > > > Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery - a burden seemingly imposed by God himself
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > What can be thought by a subset of Jewish readers ... is that ... the God in question imposed a form of slavery upon those that He delivered from slavery which was an act of deception to enslave them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think I see what you mean, but:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. the subject of the sentence is "Lou's burden"
> > > > > > 2. he says "may be", not "is", and "seemingly"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob
> > > > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > > > Here is the statement in question:
> > > > > [..I used the phrase to imply that Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery-a burden seemingly imposed by God himself...].
> > > > > There are two parts in question.
> > > > > A. Lou's burden (which is saving souls)
> > > > > B. Imposed by God himself
> > > > > The statement in "A" is false. I do not and I am not, under any burden because I give service and worship to the God that delivered the Israelites from slavery out of Egypt. The fact that the author uses the term, {may} does not annul the fact that the author wrote that I have a burden because I am a Jew, or that Jews could have a burden placed upon them by a deceptive, treacherous, god that uses betrayal. This could be a false statement to all Jews, for the statement in toto is about Jews, for the author writes that it is {apparent}(that is what seemingly means), and it also could mean as far as one can see) that the God in question has imposed by deception and betrayal the "burden" upon those that He had delivered from slavery out from Egypt, and I guess their offspring, since the author writes that I am included in any "burden". This could lead a subset of readers, such as Jewish children in depression that come here via a search, to feel put down when they read it and go further into depression and commit suicide.
> > > > > The overriding issue to me here is that a Jewish child that reads the statement could think that the statement insults the God that the Jews give service and worship to by writing that it is apparent {seemingly} that this God used deceit and betrayal to place a burden on Jews which could lead to feeling that they have a bad God and feel put down. And if by seeing what can be seen in the post, the child could think that you by allowing the statement, that you are validating what is written that they feel put down when they read such as being a Jew.
> > > > > This may be to you a hypothetical situation that is unlikely, but there are recent cases like this that are under research as to the effects of statements like the one in question being allowed to be fostered by a psychiatrist as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole. But I know what causes depression and suicide and the statement in question could IMHO arouse antisemitic feelings and Jewish readers could think that hostility could be induced in some that read the statement to inflict harm to Jews. This is because the statement is false and defames Jews as an inferior group, stereotyping them as having a burden placed on them by a treacherous God that has betrayed the Jews by deception, for {seemingly} means {for all intents and purposes}.
> > > > > But be it as it may be, if you insist that you want the statement to stand, then you will take the responsibility for any deaths that could arise out of you allowing the statement to stand for you say that you take responsibility for what you write, and I say that by you allowing third party posts to stand, that it could be thought that you are validating what the post could purport and it is like you writing the statement yourself.
> > > > > So let it be with what you want and I would like to go to the other post in question that puts down Jews in the link to John 5.
> > > > > Lou Pilder
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > > You wrote about me asking something to the poster as to if I considered it then.
> > > > The post puts down Jews on its face, and is plainly visible so that I did not consider asking for any clarification from the poster. There is also the prohibitions from you to me that could prevent me from posting what could be confrontational. And also, the issue of posting here that one being a slave that belonged to a faith had already been determined here as not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community by you in a previous post.
> > > > Since it is plainly visible that Jews are the subject and me as a Jew, the libel that states that the God that the Jews give service and worship to is "a treacherous God", is libel per se and needs not to be clairified by asking for such to the author for that God is the same God to all Jews, not to just me as a Jew. But it is much more than that because other faiths also hold that same God as the God that they give service and worship to. So a Christian child could also see the putting down of the God that the Jews give service and worship to as putting them down also since they worship the same God and do not consider that God to be a God that betrays or deceives, which is an insult to the God in question and the people that give service and worship to that God.
> > > > The insult is plainly visible and could cause stigmatization and hatred toward not only Jews, but the others as well. The portrayal of this God as a treacherous God is (redacted by respondent) and is inconsistent with the forum's purpose and distorts the intent of the forum as being for support. By you and up to six deputies unwilling to address the post in the same manner as other posts that {put down}, a subset of readers could think that you and your deputies then are ratifying the libel and that it will be good for the community as a whole to leave it as it is so that a subset of readers could think that it is supportive. This could actively solicit others to post the same or something analogous to what puts down Jews and others as is plainly visible in the post. Then a subset of reads could think that you and your deputies are contributing to the anti-Semitism that is self-evident in the post, for it puts down Jews.
> > > > At this time I would like to modify my request to you in relation to what I want you to post in the thread where the post appears, to say something like one of the following:
> > > > [... I apologize for myself and the deputies for allowing this to stand about the Jews and if it is posted again, or anything analogous to it, by anyone, I will block them...]
> > > > Then I would like to go to the post that puts down Jews where the poster offered a link to John 5 and I listed the numbers of the verses that put down Jews.
> > > > Lou Pilder
> > > >
> > > > The correction is that I put quotation marks around {treacherous God}. The convention of quotation marks could be used in many ways, one being an exact wording, and another to give a type of emphasis to the phrase, which is what I was intending here, for the statement is:
> > > [...Lou's burden of 'saving souls'may be a treacherous form of slavery-a burden seemingly imposed by God himself...].
> > > The use by me of "treacherous god" is what a subset of readers could think when they read the statement because there is an association with that God {imposed} this {treacherous form of slavery}.
> > > I don't claim to be a "A" student concerning grammatical structure, and others could also not be "A" students also. So it is what could be seen or thought by a subset of readers when they read the post in question and I think that some could think that the god in question is being portrayed as a treacherous God because the poster states that He "imposed" the" treacherous form of slavery" to the Jews because the poster refers to the Exodus.
> > > Lou
> > > >
> > > Mr Hsiung,
> > The readers are led to believe what can be seen by what you have posted here. What readers can be led to believe is that what is posted, and not sanctioned, is considered by you to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community, and supportive, and will be good for this community as a whole as stated in your TOS here.
> > The anti-Semitic statements that I am asking for you to post a repudiation to, could reverse the thinking of a subset of people that could think that by the statements standing, that those anti-Semitic statements are supportive and will be good for this community as a whole.
> > In the post in discussion now, Jewish readers and Christian readers and Islamic readers and all other readers that have their faith's foundation going back to Abraham, could feel insulted not only by what the post could purport about those people that give service and worship to that God that brought the Israelites out of bondage from Egypt, but also about what the post purports about the God that the poster Libels with the false statement that that God used deceit and caused a treacherous form of slavery apparently {imposed} by that God Himself.
> > What matters to me is that Jewish children, Islamic children and Christian children that read this could feel humiliated when they read the post and if they are in depression, they could go deeper into depression and kill themselves. This is because they could think that you are validating the libel against their God by that it is standing , so they could think that you are saying that the libel is supportive and will be good for this community as a whole to allow it to stand. And worse, if they read this discussion between us, they could see that the fire of hate is still burning.
> > Here is a post that readers could have read before they read the post in question here. I can not change what one could think if I posted that what the poster wrote was false, for it goes without saying that Jews and Islamic people and Christians could think that the statement insults their god and them as those that give service and worship to that God.
> > now if you have reached the point that you are going to allow the statement to stand, and not post a repudiation to the libel and insult to the God of the Abrahamic faiths, then you say that you will take the responsibility for whatever arises out of the fact that the statement is standing after my requests to post a repudiation to it.
> > So let us go to the next post where I have asked you to post a repudiation to the anti-Semitic statements in the link offered by the poster to John 5 with the following modification. I am changing my request to that you post that the anti-Semitic statements are not in accordance with your rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths, to include also that the anti-Semitic statements will not be good for this community as a whole.
> > Lou Pilder
> > Here are some links to what readers could think from what can be seen that you think.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/307041.html
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/973909.html
> >
> > correction,
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/307041.html
>
> Mr Hsiung and friends,
You wrote,[...Readers could believe that what was posted about you and not repudiated by you was considered by you to be accurate. The statements I'm asking you to post could reverse that thinking...].
Let us look at the statement in question that puts down, in particular but not limited, Jews.
[...Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery-a burden seemingly imposed by God himself...].
The claim by Mr Hsiung that readers could think that I condone the libel against me by not posting a repudiation, which could mean that such readers make a conclusion, could misrepresent the terms of service to the members, for the rule by Mr Hsiung is to not jump to a conclusion about a member. There is nothing that I know of in the record that requires anyone to post a repudiation of libel against another, or a repudiation of a statement that puts down Jews or those of other faiths, for the TOS by Mr. Hsiung is that one does not have to post anything for Mr Hsiung and/or his deputies to sanction a post because Mr Hsiung states that he does not wait to sanction a post because one match could start a forest fire, so no one has to complain before he and/or his deputies act. This is established here by:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/2004112/msgs/307041.html
But it is much more than that. Readers could think a lot of things as to why I did not post a response there. Readers could think that I was following the rules here by using some type of notification to Mr Hsiung about it such as an email to him. And readers could think that the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung could preclude me from posting a response because the response could be confrontational and the rule is not to return something wrong because two wrongs do not make a right. And readers could think that I was not reading the board then.
But be it as it may be, I do not see any denial that the post *puts down* Jews and those of other faiths that are Abrahamic faiths. That is one part of the post that is different from what libels me with the false statement that I have some type of burden because I am a Jew that has a God that imposes a treacherous form of slavery to those that give service and worship to that God. The statement by the poster could be seen by Jewish readers and readers of other Abrahamic faiths as a mocking and taunting that ridicules those that are Jews and those of other Abrahamic faiths. The statement as I read it insults the God in question and is self-evident by the nature of the generally accepted understanding of what {put down} means. And to allow this to continue could induce to the next reader of that post what could seriously mislead the reader into thinking that the statement in question is supportive and that it alright to post what could put down Jews in spite of the rule to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths, for after all, Mr. Hsiung also states that what is not sanctioned could be thought to be supportive and conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community. If so, That IMHHHHHHO distorts the intent of the mission of the forum and is inconsistent with the forum's purpose.
So be it as you want to be, Mr. Hsiung. And you say that you will take responsibility for what is posted here. And I say that by you allowing the statement to stand without repudiation by yourself, readers could think that you are ratifying what the statement could purport. This IMHO could encourage third-party posts of the same nature, which the record clearly shows in that from this post in question on, other posts that put down Jews and others and those post that are anti-Semitic are what in question in this discussion.
Now I would like to go on to that post where the poster offers the link to John 5 where I have listed the verses that are anti-Semitic. And I am modifying my request in that I now would like for you to use the following format that you used in the other post in this discussion, if you agree that the verses that I have listed are anti-Semitic, which is:
[ admin, 1050578 ]
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 5, 2014, at 20:50:16
In reply to Lou's reply to Mr. Hsiung-mhaliz, posted by Lou Pilder on January 5, 2014, at 20:46:19
> > > > > > > > > > Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery - a burden seemingly imposed by God himself
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What can be thought by a subset of Jewish readers ... is that ... the God in question imposed a form of slavery upon those that He delivered from slavery which was an act of deception to enslave them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think I see what you mean, but:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. the subject of the sentence is "Lou's burden"
> > > > > > > 2. he says "may be", not "is", and "seemingly"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > > > > Here is the statement in question:
> > > > > > [..I used the phrase to imply that Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery-a burden seemingly imposed by God himself...].
> > > > > > There are two parts in question.
> > > > > > A. Lou's burden (which is saving souls)
> > > > > > B. Imposed by God himself
> > > > > > The statement in "A" is false. I do not and I am not, under any burden because I give service and worship to the God that delivered the Israelites from slavery out of Egypt. The fact that the author uses the term, {may} does not annul the fact that the author wrote that I have a burden because I am a Jew, or that Jews could have a burden placed upon them by a deceptive, treacherous, god that uses betrayal. This could be a false statement to all Jews, for the statement in toto is about Jews, for the author writes that it is {apparent}(that is what seemingly means), and it also could mean as far as one can see) that the God in question has imposed by deception and betrayal the "burden" upon those that He had delivered from slavery out from Egypt, and I guess their offspring, since the author writes that I am included in any "burden". This could lead a subset of readers, such as Jewish children in depression that come here via a search, to feel put down when they read it and go further into depression and commit suicide.
> > > > > > The overriding issue to me here is that a Jewish child that reads the statement could think that the statement insults the God that the Jews give service and worship to by writing that it is apparent {seemingly} that this God used deceit and betrayal to place a burden on Jews which could lead to feeling that they have a bad God and feel put down. And if by seeing what can be seen in the post, the child could think that you by allowing the statement, that you are validating what is written that they feel put down when they read such as being a Jew.
> > > > > > This may be to you a hypothetical situation that is unlikely, but there are recent cases like this that are under research as to the effects of statements like the one in question being allowed to be fostered by a psychiatrist as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole. But I know what causes depression and suicide and the statement in question could IMHO arouse antisemitic feelings and Jewish readers could think that hostility could be induced in some that read the statement to inflict harm to Jews. This is because the statement is false and defames Jews as an inferior group, stereotyping them as having a burden placed on them by a treacherous God that has betrayed the Jews by deception, for {seemingly} means {for all intents and purposes}.
> > > > > > But be it as it may be, if you insist that you want the statement to stand, then you will take the responsibility for any deaths that could arise out of you allowing the statement to stand for you say that you take responsibility for what you write, and I say that by you allowing third party posts to stand, that it could be thought that you are validating what the post could purport and it is like you writing the statement yourself.
> > > > > > So let it be with what you want and I would like to go to the other post in question that puts down Jews in the link to John 5.
> > > > > > Lou Pilder
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > > > You wrote about me asking something to the poster as to if I considered it then.
> > > > > The post puts down Jews on its face, and is plainly visible so that I did not consider asking for any clarification from the poster. There is also the prohibitions from you to me that could prevent me from posting what could be confrontational. And also, the issue of posting here that one being a slave that belonged to a faith had already been determined here as not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community by you in a previous post.
> > > > > Since it is plainly visible that Jews are the subject and me as a Jew, the libel that states that the God that the Jews give service and worship to is "a treacherous God", is libel per se and needs not to be clairified by asking for such to the author for that God is the same God to all Jews, not to just me as a Jew. But it is much more than that because other faiths also hold that same God as the God that they give service and worship to. So a Christian child could also see the putting down of the God that the Jews give service and worship to as putting them down also since they worship the same God and do not consider that God to be a God that betrays or deceives, which is an insult to the God in question and the people that give service and worship to that God.
> > > > > The insult is plainly visible and could cause stigmatization and hatred toward not only Jews, but the others as well. The portrayal of this God as a treacherous God is (redacted by respondent) and is inconsistent with the forum's purpose and distorts the intent of the forum as being for support. By you and up to six deputies unwilling to address the post in the same manner as other posts that {put down}, a subset of readers could think that you and your deputies then are ratifying the libel and that it will be good for the community as a whole to leave it as it is so that a subset of readers could think that it is supportive. This could actively solicit others to post the same or something analogous to what puts down Jews and others as is plainly visible in the post. Then a subset of reads could think that you and your deputies are contributing to the anti-Semitism that is self-evident in the post, for it puts down Jews.
> > > > > At this time I would like to modify my request to you in relation to what I want you to post in the thread where the post appears, to say something like one of the following:
> > > > > [... I apologize for myself and the deputies for allowing this to stand about the Jews and if it is posted again, or anything analogous to it, by anyone, I will block them...]
> > > > > Then I would like to go to the post that puts down Jews where the poster offered a link to John 5 and I listed the numbers of the verses that put down Jews.
> > > > > Lou Pilder
> > > > >
> > > > > The correction is that I put quotation marks around {treacherous God}. The convention of quotation marks could be used in many ways, one being an exact wording, and another to give a type of emphasis to the phrase, which is what I was intending here, for the statement is:
> > > > [...Lou's burden of 'saving souls'may be a treacherous form of slavery-a burden seemingly imposed by God himself...].
> > > > The use by me of "treacherous god" is what a subset of readers could think when they read the statement because there is an association with that God {imposed} this {treacherous form of slavery}.
> > > > I don't claim to be a "A" student concerning grammatical structure, and others could also not be "A" students also. So it is what could be seen or thought by a subset of readers when they read the post in question and I think that some could think that the god in question is being portrayed as a treacherous God because the poster states that He "imposed" the" treacherous form of slavery" to the Jews because the poster refers to the Exodus.
> > > > Lou
> > > > >
> > > > Mr Hsiung,
> > > The readers are led to believe what can be seen by what you have posted here. What readers can be led to believe is that what is posted, and not sanctioned, is considered by you to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community, and supportive, and will be good for this community as a whole as stated in your TOS here.
> > > The anti-Semitic statements that I am asking for you to post a repudiation to, could reverse the thinking of a subset of people that could think that by the statements standing, that those anti-Semitic statements are supportive and will be good for this community as a whole.
> > > In the post in discussion now, Jewish readers and Christian readers and Islamic readers and all other readers that have their faith's foundation going back to Abraham, could feel insulted not only by what the post could purport about those people that give service and worship to that God that brought the Israelites out of bondage from Egypt, but also about what the post purports about the God that the poster Libels with the false statement that that God used deceit and caused a treacherous form of slavery apparently {imposed} by that God Himself.
> > > What matters to me is that Jewish children, Islamic children and Christian children that read this could feel humiliated when they read the post and if they are in depression, they could go deeper into depression and kill themselves. This is because they could think that you are validating the libel against their God by that it is standing , so they could think that you are saying that the libel is supportive and will be good for this community as a whole to allow it to stand. And worse, if they read this discussion between us, they could see that the fire of hate is still burning.
> > > Here is a post that readers could have read before they read the post in question here. I can not change what one could think if I posted that what the poster wrote was false, for it goes without saying that Jews and Islamic people and Christians could think that the statement insults their god and them as those that give service and worship to that God.
> > > now if you have reached the point that you are going to allow the statement to stand, and not post a repudiation to the libel and insult to the God of the Abrahamic faiths, then you say that you will take the responsibility for whatever arises out of the fact that the statement is standing after my requests to post a repudiation to it.
> > > So let us go to the next post where I have asked you to post a repudiation to the anti-Semitic statements in the link offered by the poster to John 5 with the following modification. I am changing my request to that you post that the anti-Semitic statements are not in accordance with your rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths, to include also that the anti-Semitic statements will not be good for this community as a whole.
> > > Lou Pilder
> > > Here are some links to what readers could think from what can be seen that you think.
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/307041.html
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/973909.html
> > >
> > > correction,
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/307041.html
> >
> > Mr Hsiung and friends,
> You wrote,[...Readers could believe that what was posted about you and not repudiated by you was considered by you to be accurate. The statements I'm asking you to post could reverse that thinking...].
> Let us look at the statement in question that puts down, in particular but not limited, Jews.
> [...Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery-a burden seemingly imposed by God himself...].
> The claim by Mr Hsiung that readers could think that I condone the libel against me by not posting a repudiation, which could mean that such readers make a conclusion, could misrepresent the terms of service to the members, for the rule by Mr Hsiung is to not jump to a conclusion about a member. There is nothing that I know of in the record that requires anyone to post a repudiation of libel against another, or a repudiation of a statement that puts down Jews or those of other faiths, for the TOS by Mr. Hsiung is that one does not have to post anything for Mr Hsiung and/or his deputies to sanction a post because Mr Hsiung states that he does not wait to sanction a post because one match could start a forest fire, so no one has to complain before he and/or his deputies act. This is established here by:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/2004112/msgs/307041.html
> But it is much more than that. Readers could think a lot of things as to why I did not post a response there. Readers could think that I was following the rules here by using some type of notification to Mr Hsiung about it such as an email to him. And readers could think that the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung could preclude me from posting a response because the response could be confrontational and the rule is not to return something wrong because two wrongs do not make a right. And readers could think that I was not reading the board then.
> But be it as it may be, I do not see any denial that the post *puts down* Jews and those of other faiths that are Abrahamic faiths. That is one part of the post that is different from what libels me with the false statement that I have some type of burden because I am a Jew that has a God that imposes a treacherous form of slavery to those that give service and worship to that God. The statement by the poster could be seen by Jewish readers and readers of other Abrahamic faiths as a mocking and taunting that ridicules those that are Jews and those of other Abrahamic faiths. The statement as I read it insults the God in question and is self-evident by the nature of the generally accepted understanding of what {put down} means. And to allow this to continue could induce to the next reader of that post what could seriously mislead the reader into thinking that the statement in question is supportive and that it alright to post what could put down Jews in spite of the rule to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths, for after all, Mr. Hsiung also states that what is not sanctioned could be thought to be supportive and conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community. If so, That IMHHHHHHO distorts the intent of the mission of the forum and is inconsistent with the forum's purpose.
> So be it as you want to be, Mr. Hsiung. And you say that you will take responsibility for what is posted here. And I say that by you allowing the statement to stand without repudiation by yourself, readers could think that you are ratifying what the statement could purport. This IMHO could encourage third-party posts of the same nature, which the record clearly shows in that from this post in question on, other posts that put down Jews and others and those post that are anti-Semitic are what in question in this discussion.
> Now I would like to go on to that post where the poster offers the link to John 5 where I have listed the verses that are anti-Semitic. And I am modifying my request in that I now would like for you to use the following format that you used in the other post in this discussion, if you agree that the verses that I have listed are anti-Semitic, which is:
> [ admin, 1050578 ]
> Lou Pilder
>
correction:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/307041.html
Posted by Phillipa on January 5, 2014, at 22:30:38
In reply to correction: Lou's reply to Mr. Hsiung-mhaliz, posted by Lou Pilder on January 5, 2014, at 20:50:16
Lou are you an attorney that works with discrimination of faiths? Just asking a question. Since we can't talk on here I never hear slander mentioned. Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 5, 2014, at 23:56:17
In reply to Lou's reply to Mr. Hsiung-mhaliz, posted by Lou Pilder on January 5, 2014, at 20:46:19
> The claim by Mr Hsiung that readers could think that I condone the libel against me by not posting a repudiation, which could mean that such readers make a conclusion, could misrepresent the terms of service to the members, for the rule by Mr Hsiung is to not jump to a conclusion about a member.
I'm OK with assuming everyone follows the FAQ or assuming not everyone does. If we assume everyone does, then the FAQ actually says:
> > Please don't ... jump to conclusions about others
which includes me. If we assume not everyone does, then someone could believe what was posted about you was accurate.
> But it is much more than that. Readers could think a lot of things as to why I did not post a response there. Readers could think that I was following the rules here by using some type of notification to Mr Hsiung about it such as an email to him. And readers could think that the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung could preclude me from posting a response because the response could be confrontational and the rule is not to return something wrong because two wrongs do not make a right. And readers could think that I was not reading the board then.
True, those are all possibilities. And another possibility, unless we assume everyone follows the FAQ, is that they could think what was posted about you was accurate.
> But be it as it may be, I do not see any denial that the post *puts down* Jews and those of other faiths that are Abrahamic faiths. That is one part of the post that is different from what libels me with the false statement that I have some type of burden because I am a Jew that has a God that imposes a treacherous form of slavery to those that give service and worship to that God.
Yes, that's a separate issue. But I see them as related. Since if you're not under any burden, then God didn't impose anything on you, and Jewish children won't think they have a bad God.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 6, 2014, at 10:02:38
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on January 5, 2014, at 23:56:17
> > The claim by Mr Hsiung that readers could think that I condone the libel against me by not posting a repudiation, which could mean that such readers make a conclusion, could misrepresent the terms of service to the members, for the rule by Mr Hsiung is to not jump to a conclusion about a member.
>
> I'm OK with assuming everyone follows the FAQ or assuming not everyone does. If we assume everyone does, then the FAQ actually says:
>
> > > Please don't ... jump to conclusions about others
>
> which includes me. If we assume not everyone does, then someone could believe what was posted about you was accurate.
>
> > But it is much more than that. Readers could think a lot of things as to why I did not post a response there. Readers could think that I was following the rules here by using some type of notification to Mr Hsiung about it such as an email to him. And readers could think that the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung could preclude me from posting a response because the response could be confrontational and the rule is not to return something wrong because two wrongs do not make a right. And readers could think that I was not reading the board then.
>
> True, those are all possibilities. And another possibility, unless we assume everyone follows the FAQ, is that they could think what was posted about you was accurate.
>
> > But be it as it may be, I do not see any denial that the post *puts down* Jews and those of other faiths that are Abrahamic faiths. That is one part of the post that is different from what libels me with the false statement that I have some type of burden because I am a Jew that has a God that imposes a treacherous form of slavery to those that give service and worship to that God.
>
> Yes, that's a separate issue. But I see them as related. Since if you're not under any burden, then God didn't impose anything on you, and Jewish children won't think they have a bad God.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote the above. I am unsure as to what you are wanting me or readers to think by what you wrote. If you could post answers to the following, I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
True or False:
A. It is my intent, Lou, to allow the statement in question to stand.
B. I have a justification, or excuse ,Lou, for me not posting that the statement is not in accordance with my rule to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths.
B. I agree, Lou, that innocent readers such as a Jewish child, or a child that is of another Abrahamic faith, finding this site in a search that is in depression, could feel humiliated when they read the post in question as not being sanctioned and go deeper into depression and could commit suicide after reading the post in question and seeing that it could be seen as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole on the basis that I have stated that what is not sanctioned could be thought to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community as a whole.
C. I am not concerned, Lou, that there could be consequences to innocent readers when they see that the statement in question stands, for if I was concerned, I would post a repudiation to the statement now.
Fill in the blanks:
D. A way for me to post a repudiation to the statement in question will be____________________
E. I am not going to post to the statement in question something like what I posted concerning the other anti-Semitic statements that you, Lou, showed me my error to, for my justification for not doing that is:_____________________________
F. By my allowing the statement to stand, Lou, that will be good for his community as a whole because:_______________________________________
G. I understand, Lou, that statements that put down Jews or others are not in accordance with my rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths, but I am going allow this one in question here to stand because: ________________
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 6, 2014, at 13:43:41
In reply to Re: correction: Lou's reply to Mr. Hsiung-mhaliz » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on January 5, 2014, at 22:30:38
> Lou are you an attorney that works with discrimination of faiths? Just asking a question. Since we can't talk on here I never hear slander mentioned. Phillipa
Phillipa,
I am not an attorney. But I am an advocate for justice and consider discrimination because of religion as an abuse of power that is not good for this community as a whole, and not supportive, and not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community.
I consider the allowing of antisemitism to be posted here to be a component of hate, like a fire that could spread, and disrespectful to humanity itself for the hate could consume those that condone it. Anyone that condones the hate may think otherwise, but I say to you that it has been revealed to me that hate is death, death and darkness to the soul, and that the allowing to be posted of what could put down Jews could lead readers to think that hate is supportive here. I am here to dispel the darkness of the death of one's soul so that they can walk in the light of the living.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on January 6, 2014, at 20:30:15
In reply to Lou's reply-lytoflyvng » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on January 6, 2014, at 13:43:41
So you post to inform others of what you believe to be true even if it could be or might not be? Interesting. Well I don't dislike anyone, little green men, blue ones, or any religion as the USA grants us the right to worship in any way we chose. So I don't get it? Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 6, 2014, at 22:39:22
In reply to Lou's rply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-mhalzphoar » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on January 6, 2014, at 10:02:38
> A. It is my intent, Lou, to allow the statement in question to stand.
False. It's my intent to work out a reply to that post with you.
> B. I have a justification, or excuse ,Lou, for me not posting that the statement is not in accordance with my rule to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths.
True. I believe that you posting a reply would address the issue more effectively than me posting a reply.
> B. I agree, Lou, that innocent readers such as a Jewish child, or a child that is of another Abrahamic faith, finding this site in a search that is in depression, could feel humiliated when they read the post in question as not being sanctioned and go deeper into depression and could commit suicide after reading the post in question and seeing that it could be seen as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole on the basis that I have stated that what is not sanctioned could be thought to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community as a whole.
True, that's possible. But it would require jumping to a conclusion (that it was supportive and good for the community). But you posting a reply could prevent jumping to that conclusion.
> C. I am not concerned, Lou, that there could be consequences to innocent readers when they see that the statement in question stands, for if I was concerned, I would post a repudiation to the statement now.
False. I'm concerned, which is why I'm trying to work out a reply to that post with you.
> D. A way for me to post a repudiation to the statement in question will be____________________
I believe that you posting a repudiation would address the issue more effectively than me posting a repudiation.
> E. I am not going to post to the statement in question something like what I posted concerning the other anti-Semitic statements that you, Lou, showed me my error to, for my justification for not doing that is:_____________________________
I believe that you posting a reply would address the issue more effectively than me posting a reply.
> F. By my allowing the statement to stand, Lou, that will be good for his community as a whole because:_______________________________________
It's my intent to work out a reply to that post with you.
> G. I understand, Lou, that statements that put down Jews or others are not in accordance with my rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths, but I am going allow this one in question here to stand because: ________________
It's my intent to work out a reply to that post with you.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 7, 2014, at 19:36:07
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on January 6, 2014, at 22:39:22
> > A. It is my intent, Lou, to allow the statement in question to stand.
>
> False. It's my intent to work out a reply to that post with you.
>
> > B. I have a justification, or excuse ,Lou, for me not posting that the statement is not in accordance with my rule to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths.
>
> True. I believe that you posting a reply would address the issue more effectively than me posting a reply.
>
> > B. I agree, Lou, that innocent readers such as a Jewish child, or a child that is of another Abrahamic faith, finding this site in a search that is in depression, could feel humiliated when they read the post in question as not being sanctioned and go deeper into depression and could commit suicide after reading the post in question and seeing that it could be seen as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole on the basis that I have stated that what is not sanctioned could be thought to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community as a whole.
>
> True, that's possible. But it would require jumping to a conclusion (that it was supportive and good for the community). But you posting a reply could prevent jumping to that conclusion.
>
> > C. I am not concerned, Lou, that there could be consequences to innocent readers when they see that the statement in question stands, for if I was concerned, I would post a repudiation to the statement now.
>
> False. I'm concerned, which is why I'm trying to work out a reply to that post with you.
>
> > D. A way for me to post a repudiation to the statement in question will be____________________
>
> I believe that you posting a repudiation would address the issue more effectively than me posting a repudiation.
>
> > E. I am not going to post to the statement in question something like what I posted concerning the other anti-Semitic statements that you, Lou, showed me my error to, for my justification for not doing that is:_____________________________
>
> I believe that you posting a reply would address the issue more effectively than me posting a reply.
>
> > F. By my allowing the statement to stand, Lou, that will be good for his community as a whole because:_______________________________________
>
> It's my intent to work out a reply to that post with you.
>
> > G. I understand, Lou, that statements that put down Jews or others are not in accordance with my rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths, but I am going allow this one in question here to stand because: ________________
>
> It's my intent to work out a reply to that post with you.
>
> BobMr Hsiung,
You wrote,[...It's my intent to work out a reply to that post with you...].
The elemaents that I would like to see in any reply are anything that you want to post so that it says that:
A. the statements in question are not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community, and:
B. the statement is not in accordance with your rule to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths.
Since it is your rule that the statement is not in accordance with, I can not post a repudiation to it for it is not my rule, but yours. If I was to post the repudiation, others could still post statements of the nature that the post could purport because I am not in authority to sanction what is not in accordance with a rule, for I can not be in place of the moderator.
Now what I am reading here could be that you will post the remedial action and together we will plan on what to post.
I will concede that you can post anything that could show that you do not want anti-Semitic statements and other statements that could put down those of other faiths to be seen by a subset of readers as supportive, for you say that support takes precedence and that unsanctioned posts could be seen by a subset of readers as being supportive and conducive to the civic harmony of this community. If I posted, I could only speak for myself and not put out the fire of hate, for I did not draft the rule. But if you posted the repudiation, you would be speaking from the one that drafted the rule, to put out the fire before it becomes a forest fire, that has the authority to put out the fire of hate that could still be burning because the statement remains unsanctioned.
And be it as it may be, I would like then to go to the next post in question where the poster offers a link to anti-Semitic statements in John 5 even if you want to discuss this statement in question further, for we could recess for this one for now and come back to it later.
Lou PIlder
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 8, 2014, at 13:56:05
In reply to correction: Lou's reply to Mr. Hsiung-mhaliz, posted by Lou Pilder on January 5, 2014, at 20:50:16
> > > > > > > > > > > Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery - a burden seemingly imposed by God himself
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What can be thought by a subset of Jewish readers ... is that ... the God in question imposed a form of slavery upon those that He delivered from slavery which was an act of deception to enslave them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think I see what you mean, but:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. the subject of the sentence is "Lou's burden"
> > > > > > > > 2. he says "may be", not "is", and "seemingly"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > > > > > Here is the statement in question:
> > > > > > > [..I used the phrase to imply that Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery-a burden seemingly imposed by God himself...].
> > > > > > > There are two parts in question.
> > > > > > > A. Lou's burden (which is saving souls)
> > > > > > > B. Imposed by God himself
> > > > > > > The statement in "A" is false. I do not and I am not, under any burden because I give service and worship to the God that delivered the Israelites from slavery out of Egypt. The fact that the author uses the term, {may} does not annul the fact that the author wrote that I have a burden because I am a Jew, or that Jews could have a burden placed upon them by a deceptive, treacherous, god that uses betrayal. This could be a false statement to all Jews, for the statement in toto is about Jews, for the author writes that it is {apparent}(that is what seemingly means), and it also could mean as far as one can see) that the God in question has imposed by deception and betrayal the "burden" upon those that He had delivered from slavery out from Egypt, and I guess their offspring, since the author writes that I am included in any "burden". This could lead a subset of readers, such as Jewish children in depression that come here via a search, to feel put down when they read it and go further into depression and commit suicide.
> > > > > > > The overriding issue to me here is that a Jewish child that reads the statement could think that the statement insults the God that the Jews give service and worship to by writing that it is apparent {seemingly} that this God used deceit and betrayal to place a burden on Jews which could lead to feeling that they have a bad God and feel put down. And if by seeing what can be seen in the post, the child could think that you by allowing the statement, that you are validating what is written that they feel put down when they read such as being a Jew.
> > > > > > > This may be to you a hypothetical situation that is unlikely, but there are recent cases like this that are under research as to the effects of statements like the one in question being allowed to be fostered by a psychiatrist as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole. But I know what causes depression and suicide and the statement in question could IMHO arouse antisemitic feelings and Jewish readers could think that hostility could be induced in some that read the statement to inflict harm to Jews. This is because the statement is false and defames Jews as an inferior group, stereotyping them as having a burden placed on them by a treacherous God that has betrayed the Jews by deception, for {seemingly} means {for all intents and purposes}.
> > > > > > > But be it as it may be, if you insist that you want the statement to stand, then you will take the responsibility for any deaths that could arise out of you allowing the statement to stand for you say that you take responsibility for what you write, and I say that by you allowing third party posts to stand, that it could be thought that you are validating what the post could purport and it is like you writing the statement yourself.
> > > > > > > So let it be with what you want and I would like to go to the other post in question that puts down Jews in the link to John 5.
> > > > > > > Lou Pilder
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mr. Hsiung,
> > > > > > You wrote about me asking something to the poster as to if I considered it then.
> > > > > > The post puts down Jews on its face, and is plainly visible so that I did not consider asking for any clarification from the poster. There is also the prohibitions from you to me that could prevent me from posting what could be confrontational. And also, the issue of posting here that one being a slave that belonged to a faith had already been determined here as not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community by you in a previous post.
> > > > > > Since it is plainly visible that Jews are the subject and me as a Jew, the libel that states that the God that the Jews give service and worship to is "a treacherous God", is libel per se and needs not to be clairified by asking for such to the author for that God is the same God to all Jews, not to just me as a Jew. But it is much more than that because other faiths also hold that same God as the God that they give service and worship to. So a Christian child could also see the putting down of the God that the Jews give service and worship to as putting them down also since they worship the same God and do not consider that God to be a God that betrays or deceives, which is an insult to the God in question and the people that give service and worship to that God.
> > > > > > The insult is plainly visible and could cause stigmatization and hatred toward not only Jews, but the others as well. The portrayal of this God as a treacherous God is (redacted by respondent) and is inconsistent with the forum's purpose and distorts the intent of the forum as being for support. By you and up to six deputies unwilling to address the post in the same manner as other posts that {put down}, a subset of readers could think that you and your deputies then are ratifying the libel and that it will be good for the community as a whole to leave it as it is so that a subset of readers could think that it is supportive. This could actively solicit others to post the same or something analogous to what puts down Jews and others as is plainly visible in the post. Then a subset of reads could think that you and your deputies are contributing to the anti-Semitism that is self-evident in the post, for it puts down Jews.
> > > > > > At this time I would like to modify my request to you in relation to what I want you to post in the thread where the post appears, to say something like one of the following:
> > > > > > [... I apologize for myself and the deputies for allowing this to stand about the Jews and if it is posted again, or anything analogous to it, by anyone, I will block them...]
> > > > > > Then I would like to go to the post that puts down Jews where the poster offered a link to John 5 and I listed the numbers of the verses that put down Jews.
> > > > > > Lou Pilder
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The correction is that I put quotation marks around {treacherous God}. The convention of quotation marks could be used in many ways, one being an exact wording, and another to give a type of emphasis to the phrase, which is what I was intending here, for the statement is:
> > > > > [...Lou's burden of 'saving souls'may be a treacherous form of slavery-a burden seemingly imposed by God himself...].
> > > > > The use by me of "treacherous god" is what a subset of readers could think when they read the statement because there is an association with that God {imposed} this {treacherous form of slavery}.
> > > > > I don't claim to be a "A" student concerning grammatical structure, and others could also not be "A" students also. So it is what could be seen or thought by a subset of readers when they read the post in question and I think that some could think that the god in question is being portrayed as a treacherous God because the poster states that He "imposed" the" treacherous form of slavery" to the Jews because the poster refers to the Exodus.
> > > > > Lou
> > > > > >
> > > > > Mr Hsiung,
> > > > The readers are led to believe what can be seen by what you have posted here. What readers can be led to believe is that what is posted, and not sanctioned, is considered by you to be conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community, and supportive, and will be good for this community as a whole as stated in your TOS here.
> > > > The anti-Semitic statements that I am asking for you to post a repudiation to, could reverse the thinking of a subset of people that could think that by the statements standing, that those anti-Semitic statements are supportive and will be good for this community as a whole.
> > > > In the post in discussion now, Jewish readers and Christian readers and Islamic readers and all other readers that have their faith's foundation going back to Abraham, could feel insulted not only by what the post could purport about those people that give service and worship to that God that brought the Israelites out of bondage from Egypt, but also about what the post purports about the God that the poster Libels with the false statement that that God used deceit and caused a treacherous form of slavery apparently {imposed} by that God Himself.
> > > > What matters to me is that Jewish children, Islamic children and Christian children that read this could feel humiliated when they read the post and if they are in depression, they could go deeper into depression and kill themselves. This is because they could think that you are validating the libel against their God by that it is standing , so they could think that you are saying that the libel is supportive and will be good for this community as a whole to allow it to stand. And worse, if they read this discussion between us, they could see that the fire of hate is still burning.
> > > > Here is a post that readers could have read before they read the post in question here. I can not change what one could think if I posted that what the poster wrote was false, for it goes without saying that Jews and Islamic people and Christians could think that the statement insults their god and them as those that give service and worship to that God.
> > > > now if you have reached the point that you are going to allow the statement to stand, and not post a repudiation to the libel and insult to the God of the Abrahamic faiths, then you say that you will take the responsibility for whatever arises out of the fact that the statement is standing after my requests to post a repudiation to it.
> > > > So let us go to the next post where I have asked you to post a repudiation to the anti-Semitic statements in the link offered by the poster to John 5 with the following modification. I am changing my request to that you post that the anti-Semitic statements are not in accordance with your rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths, to include also that the anti-Semitic statements will not be good for this community as a whole.
> > > > Lou Pilder
> > > > Here are some links to what readers could think from what can be seen that you think.
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/307041.html
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/423771.html
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/973909.html
> > > >
> > > > correction,
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/307041.html
> > >
> > > Mr Hsiung and friends,
> > You wrote,[...Readers could believe that what was posted about you and not repudiated by you was considered by you to be accurate. The statements I'm asking you to post could reverse that thinking...].
> > Let us look at the statement in question that puts down, in particular but not limited, Jews.
> > [...Lou's burden of 'saving souls' may be a treacherous form of slavery-a burden seemingly imposed by God himself...].
> > The claim by Mr Hsiung that readers could think that I condone the libel against me by not posting a repudiation, which could mean that such readers make a conclusion, could misrepresent the terms of service to the members, for the rule by Mr Hsiung is to not jump to a conclusion about a member. There is nothing that I know of in the record that requires anyone to post a repudiation of libel against another, or a repudiation of a statement that puts down Jews or those of other faiths, for the TOS by Mr. Hsiung is that one does not have to post anything for Mr Hsiung and/or his deputies to sanction a post because Mr Hsiung states that he does not wait to sanction a post because one match could start a forest fire, so no one has to complain before he and/or his deputies act. This is established here by:
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/2004112/msgs/307041.html
> > But it is much more than that. Readers could think a lot of things as to why I did not post a response there. Readers could think that I was following the rules here by using some type of notification to Mr Hsiung about it such as an email to him. And readers could think that the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung could preclude me from posting a response because the response could be confrontational and the rule is not to return something wrong because two wrongs do not make a right. And readers could think that I was not reading the board then.
> > But be it as it may be, I do not see any denial that the post *puts down* Jews and those of other faiths that are Abrahamic faiths. That is one part of the post that is different from what libels me with the false statement that I have some type of burden because I am a Jew that has a God that imposes a treacherous form of slavery to those that give service and worship to that God. The statement by the poster could be seen by Jewish readers and readers of other Abrahamic faiths as a mocking and taunting that ridicules those that are Jews and those of other Abrahamic faiths. The statement as I read it insults the God in question and is self-evident by the nature of the generally accepted understanding of what {put down} means. And to allow this to continue could induce to the next reader of that post what could seriously mislead the reader into thinking that the statement in question is supportive and that it alright to post what could put down Jews in spite of the rule to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths, for after all, Mr. Hsiung also states that what is not sanctioned could be thought to be supportive and conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community. If so, That IMHHHHHHO distorts the intent of the mission of the forum and is inconsistent with the forum's purpose.
> > So be it as you want to be, Mr. Hsiung. And you say that you will take responsibility for what is posted here. And I say that by you allowing the statement to stand without repudiation by yourself, readers could think that you are ratifying what the statement could purport. This IMHO could encourage third-party posts of the same nature, which the record clearly shows in that from this post in question on, other posts that put down Jews and others and those post that are anti-Semitic are what in question in this discussion.
> > Now I would like to go on to that post where the poster offers the link to John 5 where I have listed the verses that are anti-Semitic. And I am modifying my request in that I now would like for you to use the following format that you used in the other post in this discussion, if you agree that the verses that I have listed are anti-Semitic, which is:
> > [ admin, 1050578 ]
> > Lou Pilder
> >
> correction:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/307041.html
>Mr Hsiung,
You wrote that by me posting a repudiation that it would address the issues more effectively. You also agree that a subset of readers could feel humiliated and put down and kill themselves after reading the post in question, such as Jewish children and those of other Abrahamic faiths.
You also state that readers would have to jump to a conclusion concerning that what is seen in the statement to be supportive and good for the community. I do not think so, because your own terms of service state that you do what will be good for this community as a whole, and that you do not wait to sanction a post even if no one complained because one match could start a forest fire. You also state that unsanctioned posts could be thought by readers to be supportive and conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community. There are even other posts by you that establish that what is seen as being un notated by you , that the statements that stand are considered by you to be supportive, for you state that support takes precedence. I do not see that anyone needs to make any jump to the conclusion that unsanctioned posts are considered by you to be supportive and will be good for this community as a whole by you. And more than that, you state that you will attend to notifications but you give yourself the option of attending to notifications from me as stating that you think that it might be good for members to see that you do not have to respond to me. All of that, makes it easy IMHO to conclude without making any jump to that conclusion. And the fact that we are in discussion for you to post what could put out the fire of hate and that you are taking the position that you are waiting for me to post something, contradicts your claim that you do not wait to sanction a post because that one match could start a forest fire so waiting for another to complain or give you a better explanation to this (such as you claiming that I could state it better so you will wait for me) could allow the fire to escalate. So readers can make their own determination as to if you are concerned or not by reading what you have posted here.
The other aspect of that you are waiting for me to post a repudiation because you want a better statement from me in place of yours, brings up that readers could see the post standing so that they could think that you and your deputies of record are ratifying the libel against me and the Jews and those of other Abrahamic faiths. This could encourage other defamatory postings against me and Jews and those of other Abrahamic faiths. And as time runs, more posts of the same nature could arise and a development of hatred toward me and the Jews and the others could be fostered here by you and your deputies allowing what you admit is a statement that puts down Jews and that you are concerned about it. Yet today, the statement stands and the fire of hate is still burning.
By you stating here that you are waiting to post to the statement in question as a repudiation of it, but that I would address the issues more effectively, could be seen by a subset of readers as that your contention misrepresents your own terms of service, for you state that you do not wait to put out a match that could start a forest fire so that your contention distorts the intent of your administration of the site as to protect people from statements that humiliate, ridicule and otherwise put down a subset of readers. It is plainly visible that the evidence here is that by you saying that you are waiting for me to post a repudiation could be thought IMHO by a subset of readers that you are attempting to shift the blame of any harm that could come to a reader that sees the statement in question as supportive because it stands, to me, because I have not posted my own repudiation to the libel against me and the Jews. This could be thought also that you are shifting the {responsibility} for sanctioning the post to the users of this site which some readers could see that you are attempting to make an argument that you are immune from invoking your own rules in statements that put down those of other faiths in an attempt to subvert your own rules. But the post puts down all Jews and all Islamic people and all Christians and all others that have their faith as being in an Abrahamic religion while you have a rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths. I can only speak for myself and because of your prohibitions posted to me here, I am prevented from addressing the libel toward me and the Jews in the manner that I need to in order for me to repudiate the defamation toward the Jews and me as a Jew here. And your TOS state to use the notification procedure and I have followed those rules as can be seen by the years of outstanding notification and requests that if you had responded to them, IMHO the fire of hatred toward me and the Jews and others here would have not been allowed to start.
Lou PIlder
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.